By aligning its RAISE Act with California's SB 53, New York is helping create a powerful, bi-coastal regulatory consensus. This convergence counters the industry's argument against a "chaotic patchwork" of state laws and establishes a baseline for AI transparency that other states may adopt, effectively setting a national standard in the absence of federal action.
Related Insights
When lobbying against New York's RAISE Act for AI safety, the industry's own estimate of the compliance burden was surprisingly low. They calculated that a tech giant like Google or Meta would only need to hire one additional full-time employee, undermining the argument that such regulation would be prohibitively expensive.
The US President's move to centralize AI regulation over individual states is likely a response to lobbying from major tech companies. They need a stable, nationwide framework to protect their massive capital expenditures on data centers. A patchwork of state laws creates uncertainty and the risk of being forced into costly relocations.
The bill regulates not just models trained with massive compute, but also smaller models trained on the output of larger ones ('knowledge distillation'). This is a key technique Chinese firms use to bypass US export controls on advanced chips, bringing them under the regulatory umbrella.
Contrary to their current stance, major AI labs will pivot to support national-level regulation. The motivation is strategic: a single, predictable federal framework is preferable to navigating an increasingly complex and contradictory patchwork of state-by-state AI laws, which stifles innovation and increases compliance costs.
The idea of individual states creating their own AI regulations is fundamentally flawed. AI operates across state lines, making it a clear case of interstate commerce that demands a unified federal approach. A 50-state regulatory framework would create chaos and hinder the country's ability to compete globally in AI development.
Contrary to its controversial reputation, New York's RAISE Act is narrowly focused on catastrophic risks. The bill's threshold for action is extraordinarily high: an AI must contribute to 100 deaths, $1 billion in damage, or a fully automated crime, far from regulating everyday AI applications.
Assemblyman Alex Boris argues against copying California's AI safety bill (SB53). Unlike state-specific data privacy laws, such a bill wouldn't grant new rights to New Yorkers, as any company large enough to be affected in New York is already subject to the California law, making the effort redundant.
California's push for aggressive AI regulation is not primarily driven by voter demand. Instead, Sacramento lawmakers see themselves as a de facto national regulator, filling a perceived federal vacuum. They are actively coordinating with the European Union, aiming to set standards for the entire U.S. and control a nascent multi-trillion-dollar industry.
Advocating for a single national AI policy is often a strategic move by tech lobbyists and friendly politicians to preempt and invalidate stricter regulations emerging at the state level. Under the guise of creating a unified standard, this approach effectively ensures the actual policy is weak or non-existent, allowing the industry to operate with minimal oversight.
AI policy has evolved from a niche topic into a viable campaign issue for ambitious state-level politicians. The sponsors of both New York's RAISE Act and California's SB 53 are leveraging their legislative victories on AI to run for U.S. Congress, signaling a new era where AI regulation is a key part of a politician's public platform.